New Tamron 18-270mm

Got my first DSLR (T1i) about a month ago and today I got my first lens (besides the kit lens). I don't have a lot of experience with the DSLR, but this lens is awsome. Focus is quick and the zoom is great. These pics are just some from the yard, I'll post more after the Easter weekend.

Comments, advice, and critiques are welcome and wanted.

Joe

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I sold mine after a month of use - was very disappointed with autofocus performance in low light. It was slow focusing or sometimes never at all in low light. During day it was an ok lens for a superzoom. Due to the fact that I shot a lot inside or at night, this was unacceptable to me. The stiff zoom in the middle I could deal with, autofocus issues - I could not. I've read many reviews by others in agreement with me re: slow slow focusing in low light. I think the kit lens is better.

As far as your shots, the op, try to stop this lens down to get some sharper results, otherwise wide open you will expect softness exhibited by your examples here.

The best I could get out of that lens:

I used the older 18-250 version of the Tamron and it was my first lens too apart from the kit 18-55. Then somewhere somehow I was introduced to canon L lenses. Bad mistake. I'm hooked and addicted.

Disclaimer: I'm no expert.

Back to topic.

The flower picture looked slightly soft and the colour could be improved with increased saturation. A better background can be had I'm sure of that. Occasionally it's best not to put the centre of attention in the middle if possible. Best managed by focus recompose or cropping (this is easier).

The second picture is better composed. Love the black and white look but I can see you have used the onboard flash. If you can try get the 430 II and used the ceiling or side wall to bounce the light. It's less harsher on the subject.

Sometime increasing the contrast in B&W has a more dynamic impact.

Before I take any pictures myself the first thing I check is the white balance. I use the white balance caps (visicap on eBay i think that's what its called) in front of my lens to calibrate mine and use the custom set afterwards. Makes a huge difference unless you are shootinmg in RAW format. If you this right very rarely would you need to make any adjustment at all.

Exposure is everything. Its a balance of ISO versus aperture size versus shutter speed. Don't worry about this yet but the sooner you understand this things will make much more sense.

Best way to learn is to take images and lots of it. Keep it up and thank you for posting.

Enjoy and welcome to POTN!

Jam.radonc wrote in post #9918259
I used the older 18-250 version of the Tamron and it was my first lens too apart from the kit 18-55.

I actually have that 18-250 Tamron lens in Nikon mount now and I am quite pleased for superzoom. Focuses better than 18-270 or 18-200. And so much more compact that 18-270!

The flower looks a bit soft to me.

Thanks for all the advice! My next purchase will be an external flash.

I'd say the focusing speed is about mediocre, perfectly OK for me on a superzoom like this.
However, I wouldn't be so harsh on this lens regarding low light focusing. I'd say it's comparable to most lenses in this category. Do not expect this lens to have the same low light focusing performance as say an 85 1.8 or even 17-55 IS have, that'd be unreasonable.
I had the kit lens (18-55 IS) and the 55-250 IS before I bought this lens and they were about the same in low light regarding focusing ability. In low light, just like in good light, but especially in low light you need to find a decent contrast area to focus on.

Bottom line is, if you shoot a lot of pictures in very low light, you should not use this lens for that purpose, get a fast prime or a high end fast zoom, simple as that.

I have a 17-55 IS and when I know I need to shoot an indoor, low light event, I take that lens + a 430EX and not my 18-270. They can co-exist peacefully in my bag, the Tammy is my #1 vacation/walkabout lens. I rarely run into situations with my Tammy where it would hunt or refuse to focus in low light. If light is so low that I can't my Tammy to focus, then my pictures would probably come out crap anyway.

I think this lens is excellent for what it is, and perhaps the best in its category. But there are countless other threads dicsussing that.

Congrats on the new lens.

In fact, I'm just about to head out for a bike ride/walk in this 80 degree weather and taking my XTi + Tammy with me

gabebalazs wrote in post #9920269
I had the kit lens (18-55 IS) and the 55-250 IS before I bought this lens and they were about the same in low light regarding focusing ability. In low light, just like in good light, but especially in low light you need to find a decent contrast area to focus on.

Have to respectively disagree with you here, my 55-250 (despite lack of USM) consistently focused faster than Tamron 18-270 in low light, and its sharpness is well-known so it is often called a 'poor man's L lens". There are several tests out there comparing the two, one comes to mind by Lightrules on this forum, and the conclusion is that 55-250is just kills 18-270. But then it should as 18-270 is a complex zoom lens.

absolutic wrote in post #9920337
There are several tests out there comparing the two, one comes to mind by Lightrules on this forum, and the conclusion is that 55-250is just kills 18-270. But then it should as 18-270 is a complex zoom lens.

"Kills" might be too strong, though the Canon is a little better at every equivalent FL than the 15x zoom. For example at their tele ends: http://www.pbase.com …/image/10561100​7/original

That said, we could use the word "kills" when comparing the Tamron to the Canon 300 f2.8 L IS USM http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/vcbonus

I like the Tamron 18-270 VC. Nice consumer build, great range, good optics (all things considered), excellent VC unit, and 6 years warranty. Nice travel-and-about lens!

Soft flower, but other pictures are ok. As we all know, there's no all-purpose lens. Otherwise my dream of Canon's 8-600mm f/1.0L II would come true

aboss3 wrote in post #9921527
Soft flower, but other pictures are ok. As we all know, there's no all-purpose lens. Otherwise my dream of Canon's 8-600mm f/1.0L II would come true

LOL and how many people will you hire to carry this lens for you?

I have comparison samples too in the Lens Sample Photo Archive, check it out for yourself. Just like Lightrules says, the word "kills" is inappropriate here, even though I admit that the 55-250 IS is a bit better, except for the stabilisation. The VC just "kills" the IS . But seriously, the VC is better than the IS on that particular lens. I've never had anything better actually than the Tamron's VC.
I liked my 55-250 IS, but a 98% as good shot from my Tamron is still better than no shot at all (that is when I had my 18-55 IS on my camera and I very quickly needed the 55-250 IS. That combo was good especially for the price but I missed shots occasionally because I had the wrong lens on the body. And no, I'm not going to do casual walk arounds or vacations with 2 bodies w/ 2 lenses hanging on my shoulders )

Congrats on your new lens. I really like mine and it's often very convenient to have an all in one. Here's a shot I took on a bike ride - one of those times when I don't want to carry a bag full of lenses with me. I think you'll enjoy it a lot.

IMAGE LINK: http://ragon.smugmug.c​om …oMwR#803040982_​FhWts-A-LB